N.J. Supreme Court takes its show on the road

New Jersey's seven Supreme Court justices listen to arguments reading briefs, taking notes, and, in one case, biting nails.

And they've been known to disagree about how the unique values of New Jersey's people should factor into their opinions.

The New Jersey Supreme Court came to Camden yesterday to hear oral arguments outside their Trenton courtroom for the first time in 34 years.

Law students at Rutgers University's Camden campus got a rare glimpse of both the mundane, such as nail-biting on the bench, and the legally fascinating, such as how justices come up with their opinions.

Not since 1975, when a problem with a Trenton water-treatment facility sent the justices scurrying to Morristown, had the Supreme Court left the state capital.

In an effort to broaden access to court proceedings and showcase Rutgers-Camden's new $37 million law building - paid for with private donations, bonds, and $11 million in state recovery money for Camden - the justices heard arguments on four cases in a new moot courtroom.

One of the attorneys to participate in this historical footnote was Richard J. Hoff Jr., 36, of Haddonfield, a Rutgers-Camden law alumnus.

Hoff represented the Builders League of South Jersey in a case against Egg Harbor Township about whether developers should be required to set aside land for open space or recreation.

"It was probably more intimidating thinking about it last night and this morning than it really was," Hoff said about speaking before the justices. "A podium is a podium."

His wife and parents were in the audience. The last time they saw him in action in a courtroom was 1998 - when he went to the national finals of a moot court competition for Rutgers-Camden.

"He spent his college loans well," deadpanned his father, Richard Hoff Sr. of Berlin Borough.

After the oral arguments, the justices lunched privately and sat about 45 minutes for a question-and-answer period with professors and a few dozen law students, including three who clerk for the court.

An interesting exchange came when David Hasner, 25, of Mount Laurel, asked how New Jersey's culture influenced justices' opinions.

Justice Barry T. Albin referred to the court's famous 2006 opinion mandating that the state Legislature provide marital rights to gays.

"When deciding that case, we wouldn't necessarily look to Utah or Colorado," Albin said. "The case was fashioned in our state, with its interests and diversity. . . . The values in New Jersey are different. And therefore, in interpreting our Constitution, we can take all these things into account."

Sitting immediately to his right, Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto seemed to disagree.

"You have to be very careful in saying that New Jersey or New York or Pennsylvania is so special that we have special rules," he said. "I always fear the Balkanization of the U.S., where we all become so different."

"Yes," Albin answered, "we are one country. But we have 50 different states with 50 different laws . . . we have 50 different laboratories."

After the exchange, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner drew laughs when he said: "I hope we cleared that up for you."